Spreading scriptural holiness throughout the Church

In the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris understandably there was and still is tremendous alarm, fear, and anger. The threat of ongoing attacks have left the world waiting for the other shoe to drop. In the United States this weekend, especially in major cities, many will shop with trepidation in their hearts over more than just spending too much. Tensions are running high, and the potential for overreaction is high as well.

After the 9/11 attacks here in America hostility toward Muslim Americans in general boiled. In one case as an apparent act of retaliation someone shot a man wearing a turban. Lost on the perpetrator was the fact that the man wearing a turban wasn’t Muslim; he was a Sikh, of a different religion altogether. Even if he was a Muslim it would still just be murder, plain and simple, a deplorable act of seeking revenge against an innocent victim.

Whether the perpetrator claimed to be Christian, I don’t know. But Christians should never seek vengeance at all, much less commit cold blooded murder against a random person who looks like they might be Muslim. Christians should leave room for justice to be carried out through the God ordained governing authorities, not take matters into their own hands (Romans 12:9-13:7).

Neither should we stir up any generalized hatred for Muslims. It should go without saying that not all Muslims are terrorists; Muslims that groups like Isis consider to be compromised, hypocritical, or apostate are targeted along with Christians, Jews, and other non-Muslims. They need our prayers and support too, including the refugees, which I believe our churches, Christian ministries, and government can help compassionately and cautiously.

Although there are millions of Muslims who are radical or very sympathetic toward the cause of Isis, most are people who just want to live their lives and make a better life for their families while they follow a religious tradition that they hold dear. There are Muslims such as Dr. Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi who are calling for reform within Islam. Many more need to stand with people like them to thwart the radical vision of militant jihadists.

Overreaction, however, can work in more than one way. Christians should absolutely discourage and denounce hatred and bigotry against Muslims simply because they are Muslims, and, instead, encourage and promote compassion toward them. We shouldn’t, however, go overboard by understating the very stark differences between Islam and Christianity. We can be pro Muslim without being pro Islam; by which I mean we can have respect and compassion for Muslim people without giving credence to Islam.

In the wake of the Paris attacks some Muslim apologists were quick to denounce the terrorists. Some quoted a verse from the Quran in their denunciation, Surah 5:32. Really they only quoted a small portion of the verse. I saw a meme being shared on Facebook in defense of Islam, which contained this partial verse a couple of times at least. It read, “…Whosoever kills one innocent human being, it shall be as if he killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he saved all of mankind...”

I have been reading a translation of the Quran by Muhammad Asad, formerly Leopold Weiss, a Austrian-Polish Jew who converted to Islam, over the past few months. It was sent to my church to my attention earlier this year by CAIR (the Council on American Islamic Relations). A couple of days before the attacks in Paris, I had read through Surah 5. When I saw the postings of that verse I immediately recognized that something was missing. A couple of days later a fellow Methodist minister also posted a similar meme with the same partial verse in defense of the majority of peaceful Muslims. But to only quote that small part of the verse is misleading and really doesn’t help to allay the fears and suspicions those doing the quoting hope to allay when people find out that verse also contains a major exception clause to that statement. Here’s Surah 5:32 in its entirety with my explanatory comments in parentheses:

“Because of this (the context is a telling of the story of Cain killing Abel) did We (Allah – plural of majesty) ordain unto the children of Israel that if anyone slays a human being – unless it be [in punishment] for murder or for spreading corruption on earth – it shall be as though he had slain all mankind; whereas if anyone saves a life, it shall be as though he had saved the lives of all mankind

And, indeed, there came unto them Our (Allah’s) apostles with all evidence of the truth: yet, behold, notwithstanding all this, many of them go on committing all manner of excesses on earth.” (Muhammad Asad’s translation)

Some point out that this verse is talking about a command that Allah gave to the Jews and suggest that it doesn’t apply to Muslims. I don’t think that is really the case here. My reading of the Quran suggests to me that this would be considered a universal principle revealed by Allah to the Jews but is applicable to all people. Nevertheless, did you notice the exception clause, which I put in bold?! Those who object to capital punishment altogether notwithstanding, the exception for punishment in cases of murder is understandable, but what about “spreading corruption on earth”? (some translations say “mischief”) What exactly does that mean?

The last part of verse 32 indicates an indictment against those Jews who rejected the truth purportedly revealed by Allah who continued to commit all manner of excesses (Asad’s commentary says i.e. “crimes”) on earth. The following verse, 33, is very telling with regards to what the details of the punishment clause might entail.

“It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavor to spread corruption on earth that they are being slain in great numbers or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from the face of the earth; such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them (Surah 5:33) (verse 34 does offer reprieve to those who repent though)

Asad, who in other places argues that Islamic warfare is only acceptable in cases of defense against aggression, here notes that “to make war on God and His apostle” means “a hostile opposition to, and willful disregard of, the ethical precepts ordained by God and explained by all His apostles combined with the conscious endeavor to destroy or undermine other people’s belief in God as well.” Moreover, the phrase “spreading corruption on earth” does come up enough in the Quran to give much more insight into just how broadly it can be interpreted.

Surah 5:64 specifically identifies Jews and Christians, who have rejected the claims of the prophet Muhammad, and who, throughout the Quran, are accused of proclaiming a corrupted version of the original revelation given by other prophets of Islam, which includes Moses and Jesus, as those who “spread corruption on earth.” The Quran teaches that it is the Quran that preserves the purity of what remains of the original revelation given to Moses and Jesus, among others, before their later followers corrupted it (i.e. Surah 2:97; 12:111) The phrase “spreading corruption on earth” comes up enough to see that at its heart is a denial of what the Quran teaches is true and promoting teaching which is contrary thereto, especially ascribing divinity to things or beings other than Allah (See Surah 2:7-12; 2:25-27; 2:60-61). The end of Surah 18:15 asks, “who could be more wicked than he who invents a lie about God?” So the terms of the exception clause are very broad and can easily be interpreted to include speech or writing which is critical of Islam, the teachings of the Quran, and the prophet Muhammad. Many millions of Muslims do interpret it this way.

In an effort to discourage others from categorizing all Muslims as terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers we shouldn’t overreact and intentionally or unintentionally bear false witness about what the Quran actually teaches. Neither should we overreact and promote the idea that there are not serious and very fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam – or the idea that all religions are really the same and have the same ultimate goals. Muslim and Christian dialogue is very important and I would like to see much more of it, but not at the expense of downplaying the differences, which come down to some very central and crucial issues.

The differences between Islam and Christianity go to the heart of both worldviews, striking at the core of identity for both faiths. Take John 3:16 as a very poignant case in point.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (KJV)

According to Christianity, this is the gospel, the good news; according to Islam it is blasphemy.

“O followers of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God’s Apostle – [the fulfillment of] His promise which he had conveyed unto Mary – and a soul created by Him. Believe, then in God and His apostles, and do not say, ‘[God is] a trinity. Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God” (Surah 4:171)

Countless are the times the Quran condemns the sin of shirk, the attributing of divinity to anything or anyone, especially including Jesus, other than Allah. According to Islam John 3:16, as well as most of the rest of the the Gospel of John must be a corruption of the original Gospel that was given to Jesus himself. The difference here could not be any starker. There are competing claims that are diametrically opposed to each other. Both could be false, but only one can be true. Is John 3:16 a beautiful summary of the Gospel or is it a blasphemous corruption? Obviously I believe the former; it is the good news of God’s love revealed in His Son, Jesus Christ, who was the Divine Word, who was God, who became a human being who gave His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sin of the world on the cross (John 1:1 …) (By the way, the Quran also denies the crucifixion of Jesus and Muslim theologians dismiss any kind of substitutionary atonement as it teaches repeatedly and frequently salvation and forgiveness by faith in the absolute oneness of Allah and righteous deeds).

I was once also a denier of the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ (read about my testimony at Wall to Wall Faith, Hope, and Love – scroll down to the first post to begin reading my story or find summary short summary here). I remember reading about the teachings of Islam regarding Jesus when I believed that Jesus was merely a man, a perfect man conceived of a virgin, but still just a man. I remember thinking that if Muslims only knew that the Bible really didn’t teach the Trinity or that Jesus was God in the flesh, maybe they would become Christian, as I then understood the term. It was also interesting to read the autobiography of Malcom X and see the similarities between his own arguments against the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus and mine – not to mention his journey from a quirky sect of Islam, the Nation of Islam, to mainstream Islam. The other day I also watched a video of Muhammad Asad explaining why he became a Muslim and why he rejected Christianity. His basic argument was once mine as well. Malcom X, Muhammad Asad, I, and countless others have rejected the Trinity because it seemed to go against reason.

The word Islam could be defined as peace through submission to the revelation of God. In my case I realized that I really didn’t have peace with God because I refused to submit to the revelation of God found in the Bible, especially the New Testament. The truth is the New Testament hasn’t been misinterpreted to teach the concept that came to be called the Trinity, as I once believed, nor has its contents been so badly corrupted as to obscure the original teachings of Jesus or his earliest followers beyond recognition. To finally be at peace with God I had to surrender to the revelation of the New Testament that testifies that God gave His Divine Son to save me from my sins. I had to confess Jesus as my Lord and my God (John 20:28) and surrender my life to Him through faith to be forgiven and filled with His Spirit. I had to cast down the arguments that I had exalted above the revelation of God’s word. I had to believe even though I could not see, fully comprehend, how it all could be. I believe Muslims must do the same.

Yes we must be careful not to overreact when radical Islamists commit terrorist attacks. That also includes not downplaying the stark differences between Islam and Christianity. We Christians must be willing to stick our necks out to proclaim the Good News of the love of God revealed in and through His Son, Jesus the Messiah and our Lord and to talk about these differences with our Muslim neighbors and friends, even at the risk of being condemned for being politically incorrect or for “spreading corruption on earth.” Bullets and bombs won’t ultimately defeat terrorism, but I believe the love of God revealed in His Son Jesus Christ will.

I first blogged about this prayer on September 11, 2013, on my blog dealing with addiction. With the recent terrorist attacks and the calls for Christians to pray for those in power, those affected, and those who have caused and plan to cause pain, I thought it worth sharing again.

The Mercy Prayer is a prayer I learned while at Pure Life, developed and taught by Rex Andrews. This prayer has transformed my life in numerous ways, from finding freedom from compulsive behavior, getting through a bad day, and even growing to love those who hurt me. The reason is because this prayer, if prayed often, helps to transform one’s mind from being consumed with self to one that is consumed with the thoughts of God – and God’s thoughts towards others are driven by mercy (see Hosea 6:6 and Matt. 9:13). God’s will for you and I is mercy.

What is mercy? Rex Andrews defines it as the following:

MERCY is God’s supply system for every need everywhere. Mercy is that kindness, compassion and tenderness, which is a passion to suffer with, or participate in, another’s ills or evils in order to relieve, heal and restore. It accepts another freely and gladly as he is and supplies the needed good of life to build up and to bring to peace and keep in peace. It is to take another into one’s heart just as he is and cherish and nourish him there. Mercy takes another’s sins and evils and faults as its own, and frees the other by bearing them to God. This is the Glow-of-love. This is the anointing.

You can see by this definition why Jesus is God’s grand display of Mercy. He took upon himself our sins as his own and bore them to God.

This is why praying the following mercy prayer is so important. It nurtures within our minds – long corrupted from habitual sin, pride, and pleasing ourselves – the mind of Christ, who, though in “the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant…”(Phil. 2:5-8). When we pray the prayer of mercy we are “renewing our minds” (Rom. 12:1-2) to be like that of Christ, and laying our flesh aside in favor of the life of the Spirit.

When I am stressed, angry, when my will is being crossed, when I don’t know how to pray for someone who comes to mind, when temptation arises, or when I have free time and don’t know what to do with myself, I pray this prayer. When you ask me to pray for you, this is what I am most likely praying. When my enemies seem to be rising up against me and I know my only weapon is prayer, I pray this prayer. Learn this prayer and pray it. It will change your life! But first, a warning…..

YOU WILL NOT WANT TO PRAY IT!

This is not a prayer that anyone, in their natural state, desires to pray. It will make every part of your flesh scream against it and devise excuses to avoid it. But I wonder what would happen if we put these words to use as our united petition to God regarding the pain we so often see around us today. Not only in the streets of Paris but in our own backyards, in our churches, in our homes.

In the blanks below, what if we inserted the names of our national leaders? What if we inserted the word “refugees” or even the word “terrorist” or “ISIS”? What if you inserted the name of the person or entity which fills you with the most fear or anger?

Pray this prayer. Pray it often. Pray parts of it or all of it. Pray, and watch how God moves when his people pray mercy over all his works (Psalm 145:9).

Mercy Prayer

1) Lord, I thank You for_________.

I thank You for saving him/her/them. Thank you for what You have done and are doing in his/her/their life.

2) Make__________ to know Jesus (more). Help him/her/them to increase in the knowledge of God. Destroy speculation and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and help him/her/them to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

3) Make__________ poor in spirit. Bring him/her/them down Lord, but please do it gently. Help him/her/them to see their neediness. Help him/her/them to see themselves in light of You. Put him/her/them in their rightful place Lord.

4) Fill ___________ with Your Holy Spirit. Immerse him/her/them in Your Spirit Lord. Come to them in power and in might. Baptize him/her/them in fire Lord.

5) Life___________.

Life him/her/them according to Thy loving-kindness. Pour out Your life giving mercies into his/her/their soul.

A couple of weeks ago in one of the United Methodist Facebook groups someone posed the question of how preachers could help with the problem of biblical illiteracy in the pews. My suggestion was to start by addressing the problem of biblical illiteracy in the pulpit; the simple solution being preachers actually reading the Bible through from beginning to end regularly.

If you’ve ever wondered just how divided we United Methodists are, one pastor responded dismissively and quite ironically that early Christians didn’t read the Bible! Well tell that to Luke, the author of Acts, who commends the Bereans for searching the scriptures to confirm the preaching of Paul and Silas (Acts 17:11), not to mention the comprehensive Bible study that Jesus himself had with two despondent disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24). How about Paul’s counsel to Timothy to publicly read the scriptures and to preach and teach from the same (1 Tim 4:13)? And what of the statement in Romans 15:4 that the scripture was written for our instruction and encouragement in hope. And who but the biblically illiterate could forget the story of Phillip helping the Ethiopian eunuch to understand what he was reading from the scroll of Isaiah (Acts 8). Revelation 1:3 sums up the importance of scripture reading quite poignantly when it says, “Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear and who keep what is written in it”(NRSV).

Of course there were many who were literally illiterate, but as the above verse alludes, those who could not read had the scripture read to them in church. As a matter of fact, as hard as it is for us to imagine in our churches where the things of God are crammed within a tight window of time not to be exceeded because too many would rather miss the Holy Spirit than miss their next meal, when it was first being circulated the book of Revelation would have been read in its entirety in early church meetings. With its explosive imagery and riveting symbolism the hearing of it in an ancient oral culture must have been an amazing experience; and its call to faithful, uncompromising discipleship must have been incredibly jolting and sobering. I imagine just the experience of hearing Revelation read for those ancient congregations must have been better than the most action-packed movies that Hollywood can offer for some of us.

We should never underestimate the simple power of reading scripture. In the days of spiritual malaise among God’s people in the Old Testament, it was often the simple reading and hearing of the written word that lead to major revival. When kings and religious leaders acquiesced to the pagan world around them, the duty of daily scripture reading was neglected. The king of Israel was supposed to be well-versed in the written word of God; he was supposed to “read it all the days of his life, so that he may learn to fear the Lord his God” by keeping his commandments and leading God’s people to do the same (Deut 17:18-20).

Centuries of neglect left the nation spiritually destitute and under divine wrath. Scripture was not only forgotten, suppressed beneath pagan thought and passion, but entirely lost under idols and pagan practices in the Jerusalem temple itself. When the Law was stumbled upon in the temple and read aloud to Josiah, the king repented. After consulting Huldah, the prophetess, Josiah set out to reform the nation by calling her back to God’s word. He read the word of the Law aloud and together he and the people renewed their commitment to the covenant (1 Kings 22-23).

Spiritual revival came through hearing and heeding the written word of God, as it had before in the days of Jehoshaphat (see 2 Chronicles 17:9 ff). Josiah, also like Jehoshaphat and Hezekiah before him, turned back to the Lord via the word of the Lord and led the religious leaders and the people to do the same. Later, after the return from exile in Babylon, Ezra would lead another renewal movement among God’s people that included the reading and hearing of the Law, the written word of God (Nehemiah 8).

After I responded to the objection that supposedly “early Christians didn’t read the Bible” along the lines of thought above, my unknown colleague reluctantly conceded the point, but still blithely dismissed the notion that Biblical illiteracy is actually a problem. But a problem, a big problem it is; and one, not the only one, but one simple solution, with which I would hope everyone, at least almost everyone could agree, preachers should actually read through scripture in its entirety regularly.

The reason this simple thing is so important is because otherwise there is a much greater danger that any given passage of the Bible may be co-opted, wittingly or unwittingly, by an agenda foreign to the agenda of God as revealed in the Bible itself and most clearly in the person of His Son, Jesus Christ, to whom and about whom scripture itself testifies (see Luke 24:13-32; John 5:39).

A colleague once said, as if it was entirely inevitable, that we all just interpret the Bible through the lens of our favorite passage, perhaps a few verses from the Sermon on the Mount, John 3:16, or verses from Paul’s letters regarding justification by faith. She’s right that this is often the case. It is also true that we also have the tendency to interpret the Bible through the lens of popular theological doctrines or theologians (i.e. tradition) or a particular political ideology or secular philosophy. But I don’t think that doing so is completely inescapable. In fact we need to try to escape this gravitational pull that so often only leads to distortion and contortion of scripture itself.

In addition to studying its historical and cultural context, one way to do this is to read the Bible through regularly enough that we begin to interpret each passage through the lens of the grand narrative rather than reading the grand narrative through the lens of particular passages and our possibly truncated or distorted interpretations of them. Similarly, with enough time and effort, we will then begin reading the creeds and theological doctrines through the overarching lens of the grand narrative of Scripture rather than just the other way around. Heaven knows we need to read political ideologies and philosophies through the overall lens of scripture rather than the other way around!

When we put in this effort by God’s grace and the power of the Holy Spirit, hopefully we will begin to preach from each passage through a mind transformed by the Word rather than one conformed to the world. Some ironically, however, read the Bible through a pantheistic lens, the view that God is everything and everything is God, and unsurprisingly end up insisting in typical pagan fashion that Jesus is only one way to God among many, a position which flies in the face of something as basic as the first three commandments. Some share the lens of Thomas Jefferson’s updated Epicureanism, which led him to actually cut out the parts of the Bible that didn’t fit with his world view. Others read the Bible through the lens of ideas inspired by Marx and Engels, Freud and Jung, Betty Friedan and Kate Millet, or …. Margaret Sanger.

There are those progressive Christians who seem to read the Bible through the window of Planned Parenthood, from the inside out of course. In the face of babies being slaughtered and mutilated mostly in the name of personal comfort and convenience, and coldly and callously sold to the highest bidder, they insist that abortion is a blessing of God, and that it is really those who oppose it who are morally bankrupt. And all of this nonsense simply flies in the face of something as basic as the sixth commandment.

So without a prayerful and thorough regular reading of all of the Bible and a submission to God through it, we will be susceptible to simply using the canvas of scripture to paint a picture far different from the big picture of scripture itself. It may be a T.V. preacher who pulls from passages here and there to paint the picture that God exists to give us everything we want, when the Jesus of the actual Bible says that in order to follow him we must give up everything we have (Luke 14:33). Then there is the therapeutic portrait that the Bible is designed to fuel a feel-good faith, a comfortable Christianity that may help us feel a little better about ourselves but really has no bearing on our lifestyles and behavior in the “real world.” Or it may be a divinity school professor inspired by radical Marxist feminism, who insists that Jesus really didn’t care about how we define marriage and family because he told his disciples that they must hate their families in order to follow him (the proof text – Luke 14:26; see the op-ed here that a progressive colleague insisted was basic biblical interpretation when I said it was one of the worst cases of prooftexting I’d ever seen). Never mind Jesus’ intense warnings about adultery and divorce and his teaching about God’s original intent for marriage evident in creation (Matthew 5 and 19). Or it could even be one who insists that God does indeed sanction child sacrifice on the altar of personal choice to the false god of maximum pleasure (and apparently now profit) with minimum to no responsibility (of course they wouldn’t “frame” it this way), even though God’s word says such a thing never even crossed his mind (Jeremiah 19:5).

If our reading of the Bible is riddled with distortion, contortion, and the downplaying or dismissal of scripture inconvenient to our argument in order to justify our sinfulness and our selfishness then we may need a change of view. Maybe we need to step out of the American Dream, the neo-Marxist sexual revolution, or Planned Parenthood and take a look at these through the broad lens of God’s word, the whole counsel of God. Maybe we need to examine these things from the outside in, through the view from above that only the new birth and the word of God can give us.

Colossians 3:1-11 (NIV) 1Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ, who is youra life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.b7You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Full disclosure: I’ve not watched the first Planned Parenthood video. I’ve not read the news. I have no first hand knowledge of any facts about who has done what. So what is this about? It’s about the general principle that tends to defend entities like Planned Parenthood which goes something like this:

The good they do far outweighs the harm. They are a much-needed resource and therefore we must overlook or attempt to justify the parts we dislike.

The reason this is the most glaring aspect of this story for me is because I see it all too easily in myself and, I suspect, in many of us who follow Jesus. The reason this argument won’t fly for me with Planned Parenthood is the same reason it will not fly with God when we all one day stand before Him as Judge.

But it is so alluring! It works so well because deep inside all of us we want it to be true. We want to believe that the good we do will somehow trump the bad. We want to believe that the countless people we serve will trump the porn we look at when no one is watching. We want to believe that the many dollars we give to charity will cover the stinginess with which we give love to our spouse and kids. We want to believe that the many mouths we feed will surely outweigh the many lusts in which our thoughts indulge. We want to believe that the many spiritual words we convey through a blog or sermon will cover the words of death or gossip or offense we utter under our breath.

The reason the argument to defend the existence of Planned Parenthood works so well is because we are all doing it on some level or another in our own lives.

Stories abound throughout our scriptures warning us of the futility of this argument. King Saul is but one example of a man who did all that God commanded but one thing, and lost it all. He thought his heroic deeds would earn him honor with God but his lack of obedience to all that God required cost him dearly (1 Samuel 15).

Compare Saul’s tepid obedience to that of King Josiah, who instituted total reform in his kingdom upon hearing God’s words, cleansing out any hint of idolatry from the land and the people (2 Kings 23). Josiah wasn’t fooling around when it came to being right with God. Everything had to go. A spring cleaning that left no question as to who was Lord of this house.

Jesus was ruthless when it came to rooting out anything that could hinder the fullness of a life with God. If your eye causes you to sin gouge it out, he says. It’s better to enter the kingdom of God missing one part of your body than your whole body be thrown into hell (Matt. 5:29). In other words, that one part of you that you think is overshadowed by the rest of your good deeds is enough to destroy all of you.

Paul warns that just a little yeast leavens the entire batch (1 Cor. 5:6) which is to say that the things we think are of little consequence will spread like gangrene if we are not vigilant. Today we might say it’s the little foxes that spoil the vine.

And let us not forget that Jesus warned that just because we call him “Lord” and just because we have fed the hungry and clothed the naked and gave water to the thirsty – just because we have provided many good services to others – we will still be subject to the only judgement that matters: Did we know Jesus and did Jesus know us?

To know Jesus means many things but surely it means at least this: Knowing that without him I’m dead. Apart from the shed blood of Jesus Christ I am undone. I cannot possibly live up to the degree of holiness God demands, at least not this side of heaven. If I could, there would be no need to groan for a Promised Land to come. While I believe I’m growing more and more perfect in love of God and neighbor I realize along with it a profound sense of my own brokenness. The closer I get to my Father in Heaven the more I ought to see my own great need for His Son to be my Savior. I am utterly and completely reliant on the finished work of the cross where the punishment I deserved was meted out. It was on that cross that this wretched sinner received amazing grace, and it’s there I must return when I tend to hide behind whatever good I think I’ve accomplished.

I grow weary of living in a culture that laments the killing of a lion while allowing millions of babies to be aborted. But I am just as weary of the disease in us all that somehow manages to convince me that the more horrified I am at the sins of others the more righteous I appear to both myself and those watching.

Planned Parenthood convicts me because I recognize there are rough areas in my life that I’m trying to compensate for by doing more good. And that is a fool’s errand. Instead I want to take this opportunity to be like Josiah and see where my life has gathered idols and do a serious spring cleaning. And where I fall short (and I will) and where I see others fall short (and they will) I want to have on the tip of my tongue and the well spring of my heart the prayer Jesus most commended,

Since we started this blog in various ways Chad and I have not only shown how vastly differently traditionalists and progressives view sex and marriage, but also a concept as basic as love. 1 Corinthians 13:13 sums up love’s significance in six words, “the greatest of these is love.” Likewise Galatians 5:6 (NRSV) indicates its significance when it says, “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love.” While some seem to think the love the Bible speaks of, at least the love Jesus and the New Testament speaks of is antithetical to the concern for commandment keeping, 1Cor 7:19 with it structure and theme parallel to Galatians 5:6 shows, as paradoxical as it may seem to many of us, love to be naturally in harmony with commandment keeping. 1 Corinthians 7:19 “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything.” This is not in order for one to be saved, but as evidence that one is saved. This is the version of love revealed in Deuteronomy 6, Leviticus 19, in the teachings of Jesus (John 14:15) and Paul, as well as John (see 1 John 5).

At least one progressive commenter on one of our posts blithely dismissed our exegesis and exposition of the way the Bible defines love, saying, more or less, that we really don’t need the Bible to tell us what love is because we already know what it is in our hearts. I asked if he ever considered the possibility that our hearts are a far less reliable guide than Scripture, especially in light of a verse like Jeremiah 17:9, which sums up the human dilemma revealed in the entire narrative of Scripture beginning with Genesis 3 on. Our hearts desires sometimes get us in serious trouble and mislead us. Love has been and still can be disordered and misdirected, as can its naturally corresponding faithfulness. For we will be faithful to whoever or whatever it is we love, either as slaves to our own desires, “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:15-16), or slaves to the will of the one who loved us and sent His Son for us (see Romans 6).

Since traditionalists and progressives have different understandings of love, it shouldn’t be surprising that we have very different understandings of what marriage is. In short progressives seem to have centered the newer understanding of marriage around consensual sexual desire in general whereas for traditionalist it has always been centered around something much more concrete. Throughout the history of humanity in every culture and society up until the last 15 years or so, the concept of marriage has always been centered around the complementarity of the sexes, male and female, and more specifically around the one and only act which completes a comprehensive union directed toward the goal of biological reproduction. It is this act and this act alone that brings about such a union where organs from two different people are joined together for the purpose for which they were created in separate entities, to produce an entirely new human being, the undeniable proof of this one flesh union, for in a child two people, the biological parents, are permanently combined and forever linked. Albeit not the only purpose, this is the primary goal toward which natural sexual desire and pleasure are directed, and I think it fair to say from a traditional Christian perspective any subsidiary purposes and benefits should be in harmony therewith. That is to say that sex should be between two people of the opposite sex within, and only within, the sacred covenant of marriage.

While there have been various and differing ceremonies, customs, and practices that have developed around this central activity, this has always been at the center of what marriage was understood to be, even outside of the Christian tradition. A reading of Genesis would show the act of sexual intercourse could make a relationship a marriage, without any pomp and circumstance at all (see Gen 24:62-67). Even in cultures such as ancient Greece, which celebrated homoeroticism, marriage was never conceived of being the recognition of what is and is not legitimate sexual desire. In every major philosophical and religious tradition marriage has always been thought to require the complementary sexes, so much so that some laws have specified that full-fledged vaginal intercourse alone, and not just sexual stimulation by other means, could consummate a marriage. Moreover, some saw the very nature of the martial act itself, with even the possibility of children being produced, to require a permanence and lifelong commitment to match the biological reality of this unique one flesh union.

Jesus, himself, while debating the proper grounds for divorce, pointed to Genesis 1 and 2 as revealing God the Father’s original intent. Quoting from Genesis 1 and 2, Jesus indicated that the Creator meant for marriage to be between male and female and to be permanent, “Therefore what God has joined together let no one separate” (Matt 19:6). Jesus strenuously insisted that God’s design and purpose was for marriage to be permanent, “until death do them part,” as we say in the traditional wedding rituals. Although divorce was allowed under Moses, and still allowed under some circumstances such as sexual immorality and adultery (Matt 5:32; 19:9), according to Jesus, and abandonment, according to Paul (1 Cor 7), Jesus clearly indicates that marriage was meant to be a permanent union. What is it about the sexual union of a man and a woman that demands lifelong commitment?

It would seem that it is the one flesh union in the sexual act itself that implies a permanence because the fruit of the union forever links the two. Generally speaking, under normal, natural circumstances every sexual union comes with the potential of conception, and therefore the act itself would seem to demand the serious relational commitment that is found within marriage. Without question ancient Jews and Christians believed that sex was meant for marriage and according to Jesus marriage was meant to be lifelong. It is also fair to say that Jesus’ logic, which flows from the creation narrative, also limits the number of people to be included in marriage to two, thus, eliminating polygamy, which was customary among many of the Jews and their ancestors. Another Jewish sect, the Essenes, in what is called “The Damascus Document” referred to the same creation texts to argue that polygamy, concurrent or serial through unjust divorce and remarriage, was not the creators original intent for marriage either. Eventually monogamy became the norm among Christians, probably due in great part to the teachings of Jesus about God’s original intent for marriage, but the Roman custom of monogamous marriages may have also played an influencing role. Nevertheless, the logic of monogamy also seems to flow from nature as well since a child can only be the product of the union of one man and one woman.

Polygamy, however, is never specifically proscribed in Scripture, but neither is it specifically prescribed. Like divorce it seems to be something that God allowed for the hardness of heart, and the potential and actual confusion and conflict that polygamy seems to engender also seems to be out of harmony with the original will of the God, who is not a God of confusion (1 Cor 14:33). Thus, it would seem that under the New Covenant through the empowerment of the Spirit, Christians are called to live according to the higher ideal of God’s original design for marriage.

Strong marriages are the building blocks of strong families, which are completely in view with regards to the phrase “one flesh” because children are the unmistakable proof of that one flesh union; and strong families are the building blocks of strong societies. Major philosophers and moralist throughout history, the world over have recognized this truth.

Thus, marriage as it has traditionally been understood requires a love with its naturally corresponding faithfulness directed toward another and even beyond the two toward the good of the family and the common good of society as a whole, and from a Christian perspective, all for the glory of God, our Creator.

Our progressive counterparts, however, have been influenced by a different version of love, and therefore have bought into a different vision of marriage, one shaped not around the contours of embodied creation, but rather around a concept of consensual sexual desire alone. As a result the more you probe into this new understanding of marriage, it becomes more and more evident that the new emperors, who have forged this new definition and are wielding it to suppress traditional Christianity, really have no clothes. So if virtually every culture and major philosophical and religious tradition have defined marriage around the only act that naturally leads to reproduction, what ideas have inspired this major redefinition of a concept so central and vital to society? (see Here N.T. Wrights warning about major words being redefined)

Although the average person on the street, or even in seminary, may not realize it, one major philosophical tradition that could have inspired such a massive undertaking to redefine marriage to be indifferent to gender differences is Marxism. Marx and his successors realized that the family built on monogamous marriage is the foundation of free society and the capitalist system that they so despise. In what clearly seems to be a reversal of the teaching of Jesus, Marxist philosopher Frederick Engels argued that monogamous marriage was an oppressive corruption of an original state in which the norm was group marriage and collective parenting (See “The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State” 1884). Gay “marriage” is just another step in the process of undermining the cornerstone of the traditional family, the traditional monogamous marriage. So we shouldn’t be surprised when in candid moments some proponents of “marriage equality” actually admit that they do in fact want to destroy marriage, or when someone like Melissa Harris Perry says that we must get past the private notion that kids belong to parents and come to a collectivist understanding that children belong to all of us (see HERE). Neither should we be surprised with efforts to push the envelope even farther than Gay “marriage” (see the Beyond Marriage project). The bottom line is this: a strong traditional marriage culture is more likely to foster a society with families and citizens who are more self-sufficient; when traditional marriage falters government dependency grows, which is exactly what those with Marxist or Marxist inspired ideals want.

Robert George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence at Princeton, puts it in a nutshell: “The Two greatest institutions ever devised for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to live in dignity are the market economy and the institution of marriage. These institutions will stand together, or they will fall together. Contemporary statist ideologues have contempt for both of these institutions, and they fully understand the connection between them. We who believe in the market and in the family should see the connection no less clearly” (“Conscience and its Enemies,” loc. 273 Kindle). And not only does the new movement to redefine marriage help put the final nails in the coffin of the traditional family, whose demise in our society began with no-fault divorce, conveniently it also allows for the suppression of the other thing so traditionally despised by Marxists, orthodox Christianity. It’s certainly not a coincidence that the new marriage laws are coming into conflict with religious liberty. Like the nihilist revolutionaries in Dostoevsky’s, “The Possessed”, the overall aim and long term goal is to destroy traditional faith and the traditional family.

Is there a better version of love and a more beautiful vision of marriage than the one we find in the revelation of Scripture and the teachings of Jesus, which points to the even greater wonder of the mystery of the love of Christ for His Church? I don’t think so. How about you?

An article in the Los Angeles Times, written by Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, argued this past weekend that since evangelicals have conceded with divorce and remarriage that it’s high time they do the same with homosexuality. It’s not a new argument, and from time to time it gets trotted out as evidence of evangelical hypocrisy. Why, the left asks, do you extend grace and mercy to those who are divorced and yet refuse to do the same to those who are homosexual? After all, they continue, Jesus was very clear about the sinfulness of divorce while saying nothing about homosexuality.

Laying aside, at least here, that at the foundation of this sort of reasoning is this idea that since we excuse one sin we should excuse another, I want to share one way in which I hope Balmer is right, and that those of us who are conservative evangelicals will learn from the ways we evolved over time in our views of divorce and apply the same to homosexuality.

But first, for a great explanation on why divorce and homosexuality are not equivalent, please refer to Russell Moore’s article HERE. He explains why grace is and ought to be offered to the repentant person who has gone through divorce and how this is different from celebrating a person who sees nothing wrong with pursuing a same-sex sexual relationship. Even where divorce is accepted it is not celebrated. No one marches in Divorce Pride parades, and for good reason.

But there is a way in which I hope our response to the sin of homosexuality will mirror our response to the sin of divorce among evangelical circles. As Balmer points out, where divorce at one time was seen as the unpardonable sin and carried with it so much shame and guilt, today those who are divorced or facing divorce are less afraid to share their pain and struggle. Today, many churches rightly offer divorce support groups. Today churches routinely hear members bear witness to how God has healed their past relational brokenness and how their past mistakes serve as lessons for their current relationships.

We recognize how even David’s adulterous affair with Bathsheba – where a child was conceived out of wedlock and a murder was committed to cover up the scandal, enabling David to marry his pregnant mistress – God blessed this marriage after David repented of his sin (2 Sam. 12:24-25). Grace and mercy are always available to the person who repents, no matter how sinful their deed. Restoration is always God’s desire for us, and it’s available to all who call upon the name of the Lord, surrendering control of their own life to the will of God.

So, overtime, the church has rightly seen fit to offer the same grace and mercy to those who have gone through divorce, even if that divorce was for reasons other than scripture’s permitted one’s. Likewise, evangelical churches ought to follow suit with regards to homosexuality. Hopefully one day it won’t be seen as a bigger sin than others. Hopefully we will provide more and more support for those who confess to same-sex attraction and strive to surrender those desires to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Hopefully the stigma of shame and guilt surrounding homosexuality will dissipate, replaced with environments full of grace and truth, where those struggling can find mutual accountability, love and acceptance. Just like divorcees experience today.

We are more sensitive to the needs of divorcees today and must become as sensitive to the needs of our brothers and sisters struggling with same-sex desire. We can do this by repenting of our idealization of marriage as the cure for loneliness and begin preaching and teaching about the virtue of singleness and the joy that can come through a surrendered life to Jesus as our all-in-all over and above a person of either gender. We can begin to offer support for those who choose faithfulness to God’s word on marriage over the culture’s, and in so doing become a more robust family of God who walks with, eats with, shares with, prays with and bears with our brothers and sisters choosing celibacy in singleness and fidelity in marriage as prescribed by God’s original design.

May all of our evangelical churches be seen as hospitals for the broken, where people from all walks of life, with all sorts of struggles, can feel safe to confess those before God and others and be extended the hand of fellowship as we all strive to grow together in holiness, whether divorced, single, married or otherwise.

Several years ago, while a seminary student and a student pastor of a small rural church, I wrote a blog post around the 4th of July bemoaning how Christians celebrate this day. I said I would not, as my allegiance was to King Jesus alone.

What a bonehead I was. How self-serving and unloving it was for me to write such a thing, alienating every person in the church and town in which I served as pastor. My ivory-tower thinking, and the impersonal way I chose to communicate it, did nothing to bring one person to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ or make a disciple. It only won me the applause of those who read the books I had been reading, who already bought what I was selling.

While telling everyone else not to make an idol of America, I was making an idol of my position. Those who refused to bow to it were somehow sub-Christian, unlike me and my more progressive friends.

But then I got into the actual work of ministry (as opposed to just writing about it) and learned that out on the front lines the things I was learning in books just didn’t add up. When I took the time and actually talked to the people I was serving I learned a few things.

None of the people I worshiped with on Sunday were actually worshiping America. Rather, they were simply grateful for it. None of them were actually worshiping the flag. Rather, they were showing respect for it. None of them were celebrating all the past (and present) sins of our nation, including slavery and segregation and more. Rather, they were honoring the good that our nation has accomplished in the midst of a world of pain and hurt. None of them were saying “God bless America” because they desired to be better than all other nations or, even worse, rule the world. Rather, they were remembering that any good thing we have comes by God’s grace and as Abraham was blessed to be a blessing to nations, they desire to be used in the same way. None of these people were idolizing war or those who fought and died in war. Rather, they were honoring men and women who under seemingly impossible odds made the ultimate sacrifice – sacrifices far too many of us today take for granted and cannot even begin to comprehend.

In all these ways no gross sin or idolatry was being paraded but rather a rich tradition of thanksgiving, joy, celebration, honor and remembrance was and is taking place. In all this, the people of God were being very much biblical, giving thanks in all things and rejoicing with those who rejoice, while even mourning with those who mourn. These were, and are, real people with real stories with real legacies. Shame on me, or any of us, for raining on that parade with our pride.

Today, I do not apologize for being patriotic, for asking God to bless America, or for celebrating this day which declared our independence from imperial rule. I do, however, apologize for how in the past I made others feel guilty for their American pride while I blogged from my privileged bunker armed with a Mac Book and a seminary degree.

Today I would gladly trade theological pride for American pride. Pride in my theological position never won a single person to the ultimate freedom found in Jesus Christ. Pride in America, however, has opened many avenues for me to talk with everyone else in the world who hasn’t read Yoder or Hauerwas (turns out that’s most of the world), making me “one of them so that I might win some.”

So, today I choose to celebrate rather than make others feel guilty for loving ‘Merica. Today I choose to rejoice and wave flags and light fireworks and eat good food alongside the many people who I pray will be worshiping with me tomorrow morning as we gather for the Lord’s Day. My hunch is they will find their way to churches led by people celebrating life with them over those who, like I once did, remind them annually at this time how much bigger my thinking is than theirs.

It’s been almost a week since the Supreme Court voted to make gay marriage legal in every state. The vote was 5-4, mirroring what I’m noticing the in the news and on social media: 5 out of every 4 discussions are about gay marriage (let that sink in for a moment).

The fact that this issue has so captivated mainstream thought and life is quite impressive. Why? Because according to a study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in 2013, only 3.4% of Americans self-identify as gay, lesbian or bi-sexual. In this study, 96.6% of Americans identified themselves as straight. What is so impressive is how the sex lives of 3 out of every 100 people has so captivated our consciousness, both within and without the Christian community.

It got me thinking: What about the other 97% of us? It can feel as though we have been forgotten. It can feel as though our struggles and our sins are of little consequence. With the spotlight so intensely focused on what 3% of the population is doing behind closed doors it’s easy to minimize or even justify our own struggles.

With 97% of Americans uninterested in marrying someone of the same sex it seems strange that 97% of our conversations about sex have little to do with what we are struggling with, such as….

The porn industry generates 13 billion dollars in revenue in the US alone.

1 in 5 mobile searches are for pornography

69% of the internet pay-per-view market is pornography

51% of pastors say pornography is a real temptation

64% of Christian men and 15% of Christian women say they watch porn at least once a month

71% of teens hide online behavior from their parents

9 out of 10 boys and 6 out of 10 girls are exposed to pornography before age 18

Average age of first exposure: 12

68% of young adult men and 18% of young adult women use porn weekly.

This sin, legal to view and purchase everywhere, affects every one of us. The struggle is real, and it is destroying more families and lives than gay marriage ever could. Our nation’s legalization of gay marriage pales in comparison to the overwhelming acceptance of pornography in our culture and our silence addressing it.

Premarital Sex

Even before pornography began to flourish with the advent of the Internet, virtually everyone was having sex outside of marriage. A study published by the USA Today in 2006 showed that 9 in 10 women born in the 1940’s had premarital sex. The median age in 2003 of those having sex for the first time was 17. Of those interviewed in 2002, 95% said they had sex before marriage.

According to one study, 61 percent of Christians said they would have sex before marriage. Fifty-six percent said that it’s appropriate to move in with someone after dating for a time between six months and two years.

While everyone is talking about who 3% of our population is now allowed to marry, the church has often failed to offer to the struggling rest of us a healthy, positive view of sex and why God intends it to be reserved for marriage.

Sexting

While we as a nation focus on who can and cannot get married, our youth are floundering as we turn blind eyes and hearts to their struggle. Sexting, which is sending sexually explicit material through mobile devices, is a growing phenomenon among both youth and adults. 40% of all teenagers have sent and received sexual material through their phones. You can read more stats here, and this CNN article suggests that over 60% of youth are using apps on their phones to send sexually suggestive material. It’s worth checking out, parents, to learn ways to safeguard your kid’s online behavior.

I know firsthand the reality of these struggles, and know all too well the pain they bring to bear on all of one’s relationships. Even more, I know the guilt and shame surrounding these behaviors and I know how easy it is to minimize and justify these things because they are done in secret. Because so few will admit they struggle in these areas, and because the church spends so much time talking about the 3% rather than the other 97%, shame and guilt abound.

The church, when operating as she ought, is a hospital for the broken. She is to be the place where sinners like you and I, the 100% of us, can be real about our struggles without fear of being shamed or judged so that we might discover the transforming power of grace at work in each of our lives, healing our brokenness and restoring our communion with God and each other.

This is not to say the church has nothing to say about marriage, or shouldn’t address the 3% of our population, but it is to say that as we look at the landscape of sexuality around us, we must admit we are deeply broken and in desperate need of healing. Ever since The Fall we have been this way. As I read Scripture, it says that judgment begins in the church, not upon those outside of it (1 Cor. 5:12). Perhaps the most faithful and God-honoring thing we can do at such a time as this is to look within ourselves and bring to the cross our own struggles and sexual brokenness. Perhaps the best thing we can do as a church is to beat our chests and cry out, “Have mercy on me, Oh Lord, a sinner” (Luke 18:13).

As a pastor of a church, I want to be sure we are offering places of healing for all people, no matter what their struggle. I don’t want to see us become so fixated on one sin that we forget that we are all sexually broken. We all need healing. We all need to have our minds renewed. We all need to lay our sexual selves down at the altar and offer our bodies to God as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1-2). We all must remember that our bodies our not our own, but have been bought with a price, and we are to therefore honor God with how we use them.

The only sense in which “all means all,” a line often used by those fighting for affirmation and acceptance, is truly accurate is in the sense that we are all broken and are all in need of a Savior who not only can forgive us, but can transform our desires into holy affections, pleasing to God and for the glory of His name.

So to the 97% of us out there who are struggling, please know you are not forgotten amid the cacophony of voices, both gleeful and despairing, over gay marriage. And you are far from being alone. I hope you’ll seek out a church this weekend to offer up your own struggle to the lover of your soul, and find a brother or sister to walk alongside you as you both recommit to surrendering your bodies, and what you do with them, to God.

The recent Supreme Court decision to impose Gay “marriage” on every state in the union has been and will be analyzed from a variety of different perspectives, many quite elaborate and sophisticated. Nonetheless, I think a simple biblical analysis should not be missed or taken for granted. In response to a groundswell of cultural affirmation fomented by a hurricane of LGBTQ advocacy and propaganda, five unelected justices read a right to the same into the fourteenth amendment. God has given our culture what it has demanded, but it is anything but a gift. I think the first chapter of Romans sums up quite well what has actually happened.

.

Romans 1:21-32 (NET)
21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, 27 and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. 29 They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

Here we have not the exhaustive description of the state of each individual human being, but a rhetorical sketch of the idolatrous sinful state of humanity in Adam in general and in this case Gentiles in particular. Homosexual relationships, here described as mutual and consensual, are held out not as the only sexual sin, but as the most obvious example of rebellion against the designs of the Creator evident in the obvious complementary sexual differences between the males and females. Same-sex relationships were much more common among Gentiles, and virtually non-existent among Jews, a good indication that in Romans 1 Paul has primarily Gentiles in mind. Nonetheless, the Jews too, as revealed in the scriptural record of their own history, (i.e. the history of Israel and Judah 1 & 2 Kings), are indicted in the overall sin of humanity because they too, as descendants of Adam and inheritors of the corrupting power of sin passed down from him, could not resist idolatry and its corresponding morally corrupting influence (see Romans 3:9 ff; Romans 5 ff).With the specific reference to “the creation of the world” in Romans 1:20 and other echoes of the first three chapters of Genesis in Romans 1, especially in light of the explicit reference to Adam as the source of original sin throughout the human race in Romans 5, Paul certainly has the the story of the beginnings of the human race in Genesis in mind. There, especially in Genesis 2 and 3, we find a phenomenon that is repeated throughout history, the history of both Gentiles and Jews.

.
God gives a clear command with its corresponding consequence: “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” (Genesis 2:16-17 NRSV and hereafter). Genesis 3 reveals the nature of temptation and the basic tactics of the tempter. The serpent slithers into the garden and first begins to question the integrity of God’s command even as he caricatures it. He questions God’s word to stir up doubt and he distorts it so as to overemphasize the restriction of the “thou shalt not” while ignoring altogether the generous Divine permission to “freely eat of every tree of the garden” except one. Then afterward with Eve on her heals downplaying the freedom in God’s command herself, with Adam consentingly and culpably looking on, the serpent boldly proclaims, in direct contradiction to God himself, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened (open hearts, open doors, open minds?), and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5). In other words, he assured them that not only would disobedience to the straightforward command of God not bring cursing, but that it would actually bring them blessing. Adam and Eve bought the lies, the false assurance and the pseudo wisdom and enlightenment, that the serpent was selling and the rest is history, as they say, the history of the fallen human race under the curse of God’s judgment.

.
In support of the secular LGBTQ movement, many in the church began by simply questioning whether we have properly understood God’s word regarding the prohibition of same-sex sexual intercourse. Many are the distortions of revisionists who insist that the church just misunderstood those commands (i.e. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13) until the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s. Equally numerous are those who have assured us that breaking these commands is really not that big of a deal, in spite of the fact that the prohibitions are reinstated under the New Covenant as recorded in the New Testament, along with the warning that those who practice these things will not inherit the kingdom of God (i.e. 1 Corinthians 6:9 ff). Moreover, under the New Covenant this part of God’s moral law should not only be written in the pages of the New Testament, but also on the tablets of our hearts (i.e. Jeremiah 31:31 ff & 2 Corinthians 3). Less numerous but still significant are those who have argued that although they acknowledge the Bible unequivocally prohibits all forms of same-sex relationships, consensual or otherwise, the Bible, as Luke Timothy Johnson, a distinguished scholar at Emory University who is liberal on this issue, put it, “the straightforward commands of Scripture” are just wrong (see here). William Loader is an Australian scholar and expert on ancient Jewish and Christian beliefs and attitudes regarding sex who has written over 4000 pages on the subject, who takes the same track. He admits that the record is straightforward that all Jews in antiquity including Paul and Jesus would not have accepted the legitimacy of any form of same-sex sexual relationship because they would have considered them, as Paul says explicitly in Romans 1:26, as contrary to nature, God’s intent evident in the complementary design of male and female. Like Johnson, Loader rejects the straightforward commands of Scripture and the only historically plausible view of Jesus himself as simply wrong (see a concise summary of Loaders voluminous work in “Making Sense of Sex”). People like this insist that modern reason and experience make them wise enough to reject the straightforward commands of Scripture and decide better what is right and wrong for themselves, and not only for themselves, but for the rest of society as well.

.
Almost all of the mainline denominations have already bought and ratified the same lies that the serpent was selling in the garden, and now, after the SCOTUS ruling on same-sex marriage, the government of the United States of America has done the same. These ecclesial and civil rulings have all come with the promise of blessing, but proclaiming themselves to be wise, they have become fools. Disobedience, rejecting the straightforward commands of God has never brought humanity blessing, and it never will. Obedience, and obedience alone, will.

.
The curse of exile from the garden came on humanity as a whole through the disobedience of Adam. The curse of exile from the Promised Land came upon Israel and Judah because the people rejected the straightforward commands of Scripture. Hence passages like Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.” Even before exile, we see king Saul rejected for rejecting the straightforward command of God (1 Samuel 15). Disobedience has never brought blessing and it never will.

.
The Good News is where Adam and all of the rest of humanity including Israel failed, Jesus of Nazareth, the word of God in the flesh, the Messiah of Israel, the second Adam, succeeded, not by rejecting the straightforward commands of Scripture, but by fulfilling its true intent through offering to God perfect obedience (see Matthew 5:17-20). Christ came not to destroy the law or the prophets, who called God’s people back to God’s law, but to destroy the works of the devil (1 John 3:8) who is a deceiver who works to make people comfortable with sin and lures them into rejecting the straightforward commandments of Scripture. Jesus succeeded by rejecting all the temptations of the evil one with the result that “just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).
The blessing of God came through Christ’s obedience and through faith in him both Jew and Gentile, you and I, can be made righteous to walk in newness of life, which is a life of obedience (see Romans 6) and submission to God’s law (see Romans 8) by the power of the Spirit of God in Christ. This is the path of blessing.

.
Whether they realize it or not, people, in the church and without, have been lured into rejecting the straight forward command of God, either the will of God revealed in creation or in the pages of his revealed word. Some naively believe because of the distortions of revisionists that they have just not understood the commandment clearly; others have been convinced through the teaching of cheap grace that the penalty for willful disobedience isn’t really that bad after all; and some with their minds wide open have simply rejected the clear commandments of Scripture in favor of a worldly wisdom that deems the wisdom of God foolish. In any case, the end result is a rejection of the straightforward commandment of God and the rejection of the God who gave the commandment.

.
Truly, “the word of God is living and active sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account” (Hebrews 4:12-13).

.
If under the judgment of the word of God, whose judgment alone is final, we have been found naked and ashamed in disobedience, there is only one thing that we need to do. Repent, turn away from sin and turn to God in Christ to receive forgiveness by his blood, have his laws written on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:31 ff), be filled with his Spirit to live a life against which there is no law (see Galatians 5:22-23) because it is a life in which “the just requirement of the law is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (see Romans 8:4). The word of God sets before us life and death, blessing and cursing (Deuteronomy 30:19). Life and blessing comes through obedience, death and cursing through disobedience. Therefore choose obedience; therefore chose life and blessing; therefore choose Jesus Christ!

Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of same-sex marriage across the land. My Facebook and Twitter feed, like yours, is blowing up over it. Reactions range from despair to glee. In the words that follow I want to offer my personal feelings on this decision and how I believe Christians are called to respond.

4 Always be full of joy in the Lord. I say it again—rejoice!5 Let everyone see that you are considerate in all you do. Remember, the Lord is coming soon.

6 Don’t worry about anything; instead, pray about everything. Tell God what you need, and thank him for all he has done.7 Then you will experience God’s peace, which exceeds anything we can understand. His peace will guard your hearts and minds as you live in Christ Jesus (Phil. 4:4-7)

My initial reaction was to turn to Paul’s advice to the church, one that was living under the thumb of a corrupt and godless empire, and to rejoice. Rejoice not because a decision was reached that I agree with but rejoice because in all things, whether good or bad, Jesus is still Lord, he is has defeated sin and death, he is seated at the right hand of the Father, and he will come again. I rejoice because this ruling, like so many other things this life throws our way, proves God is true.

What does that mean? It means that when Jesus promised us there would be trouble in this world (John 16:33) he was correct. It means that when Jesus promised that this world would hate us (Matt. 10:22, John 15:18) he wasn’t mistaken. It means that when Paul wrote the the last days would be marked by disobedience and sacrilege (2 Tim. 3:1-2) he was right.

The events of today are only further proof that God’s word is true. It is reason to rejoice! And if these things are true, so are the promises that Jesus will one day return. And so are the warnings for we Christians to remember that we are but mere sojourners in this land. This is not our final home, and while we are here we must guard our hearts from becoming entangled with the cares of this world (Heb. 13:14; 1 Peter 2:11).

Paul’s advice to the Christians at Philippi is what sets the Christian apart from the world. How will people who have been transformed by the resurrected Christ respond in the wake of adversity, trials and oppression? How will they react to their enemies, perceived or real? They will rejoice. They will be considerate of everyone. They will not worry or be anxious. They will pray. They will place their hopes and fears and trust and distrust into the hands of God who holds all things together. None of this has taken Him by surprise.

This means I will choose to pray rather than post on Facebook my despair or glee. I will choose to rejoice rather than grow bitter or fearful. I will choose to be considerate of those with whom I might disagree and entrust them and the future of our nation into the hands of my heavenly Father.

To be a biblical Christian in this world means more than just having right opinions about marriage. It also means obedience to the many commands which tell Christians how to respond to trials, as hard as that may be.

So, Christian, what will it be? Will you rejoice and pray and allow God to be God or will you reveal that your real hope and trust lies not in the Supreme Judge of the Universe but in the Supreme Court of one nation?